Obama considering steep nuclear arms cuts

Started by Kleves, February 15, 2012, 11:15:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12
User actions

Razgovory

#60
February 16, 2012, 05:01:02 PM
I don't think our democracy would be the same if someone nuked an American city.  I think the people of this country are capable of great cruelty if provoked enough.  9/11 made the US angry and it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.  And nobody in Iraq was even invoked.  You kill a few hundred thousand Americans and you may scare the US.  Something that hasn't really happened since WWII.  I think the US is perfectly capable of genocide and if really scared by something, like an existential fear, will got to lengths not considered by other Western Democracies.  If Iran somehow nuked Washington, I don't know if there would be many Iranians left in a decade.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Ideologue

#61
February 16, 2012, 09:37:00 PM Last Edit: February 16, 2012, 09:38:39 PM by Ideologue
Of course we're capable of genocide, or at least mass killing based solely on origin.  We've commited at least three (Native Americans, Germans, and Japanese) and spent billions preparing to commit a fourth (Soviet/Warsaw Pact) and have contemplated a fifth (PRChina).
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

Josquius

#62
February 16, 2012, 09:41:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2012, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 15, 2012, 11:27:02 PM
Once the asteroid mass-drivers are in orbit, we won't need any nukes.  :ph34r:

An asteroid leaving the belt would take year or so to reach the Earth.  That's not much of a deterrent.

he said in orbit.
██████
██████
██████

Neil

#63
February 16, 2012, 09:50:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 16, 2012, 09:41:34 PM
he said in orbit.
Sort of stupid to have the mass drivers in orbit without any asteroids, wouldn't you say?
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Ideologue

#64
February 16, 2012, 09:51:25 PM
Why would you need asteroids?  Wouldn't you just build the mass driver on the moon?  Its escape velocity is pretty minimal.
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

fhdz

#65
February 16, 2012, 09:54:39 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:37:00 PM
Of course we're capable of genocide

Welcome to the human condition.
and the horse you rode in on

Neil

#66
February 16, 2012, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:51:25 PM
Why would you need asteroids?  Wouldn't you just build the mass driver on the moon?  Its escape velocity is pretty minimal.
Because it's impossible for the US to get to the Moon, due to shittiness of space program.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

HisMajestyBOB

#67
February 16, 2012, 09:57:17 PM
You bring the asteroids from the belt and put them in orbit around Earth.
:rolleyes:
Three lovely Prada points for HoI2 help

Neil

#68
February 16, 2012, 09:58:00 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 16, 2012, 09:57:17 PM
You bring the asteroids from the belt and put them in orbit around Earth.
:rolleyes:
That level of space tech is beyond the US.  For-ever.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Siege

#69
February 16, 2012, 10:04:48 PM
Why did the early bombers and fighters fly so low?
The B10 Martin flew at 2000m high, the B17 at 7000m.


"All men are created equal, then some become infantry."

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

"Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!"

Neil

#70
February 16, 2012, 10:11:17 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:04:48 PM
Why did the early bombers and fighters fly so low?
The B10 Martin flew at 2000m high, the B17 at 7000m.
Neither of those are true.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Ideologue

#71
February 16, 2012, 10:16:52 PM
Yeah, the B-17 had a service ceiling of like 35,000 feet.
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

Siege

#72
February 16, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
The late B-17G.

The initial models were nowhere near that.
The model 299 flew at 2100m or 7000 feet.





"All men are created equal, then some become infantry."

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

"Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!"

Neil

#73
February 16, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
The late B-17G.

The initial models were nowhere near that.
The model 299 flew at 2100m or 7000 feet.
I'm sure it did, but it also flew higher and lower than that.  That's how airplanes work.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Tonitrus

#74
February 16, 2012, 11:17:07 PM
I thought they also were not as well pressurized/climate-controlled as they are today...being why the aircrew wore lots of heavy clothing to stay warm.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12
User actions